PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
KLMT vs. NZAC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

KLMT vs. NZAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KLMT achieves a 12.04% return, which is significantly higher than NZAC's 8.83% return.


KLMT

1D
-0.78%
1M
5.23%
YTD
12.04%
6M
12.88%
1Y
27.86%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

NZAC

1D
-0.82%
1M
4.49%
YTD
8.83%
6M
9.51%
1Y
24.74%
3Y*
19.06%
5Y*
9.88%
10Y*
12.16%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

KLMT vs. NZAC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
KLMT
Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF
12.04%21.31%4.94%
NZAC
SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF
8.83%20.55%6.17%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMT and NZAC is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.96

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024

0.95

The correlation between KLMT and NZAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

KLMT vs. NZAC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
KLMT
NZAC

Technology

30.0%
34.3%

Financial Services

16.9%
13.1%

Industrials

10.2%
7.3%

Communication Services

9.6%
8.5%

Consumer Cyclical

9.2%
8.2%

Healthcare

8.0%
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
1.0%

Energy

4.1%
1.2%

Basic Materials

2.8%
1.9%

Real Estate

2.7%
5.2%

Utilities

2.0%
1.4%

Technology

KLMT
30.0%
NZAC
34.3%

Financial Services

KLMT
16.9%
NZAC
13.1%

Industrials

KLMT
10.2%
NZAC
7.3%

Communication Services

KLMT
9.6%
NZAC
8.5%

Consumer Cyclical

KLMT
9.2%
NZAC
8.2%

Healthcare

KLMT
8.0%
NZAC
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

KLMT
4.6%
NZAC
1.0%

Energy

KLMT
4.1%
NZAC
1.2%

Basic Materials

KLMT
2.8%
NZAC
1.9%

Real Estate

KLMT
2.7%
NZAC
5.2%

Utilities

KLMT
2.0%
NZAC
1.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

KLMT vs. NZAC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

KLMT
KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank

NZAC
NZAC Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
NZAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NZAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
NZAC Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
NZAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
NZAC Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

KLMT vs. NZAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


KLMTNZACDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.34

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.93

2.46

+0.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.75

10.68

+2.07

KLMT vs. NZAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMT Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the NZAC Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMT and NZAC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


KLMTNZACDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.22

1.92

+0.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.59

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.71

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.28

0.61

+0.67

Drawdowns

KLMT vs. NZAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMT drawdown since its inception was -16.87%, smaller than the maximum NZAC drawdown of -33.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMT and NZAC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


KLMTNZACDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.87%

-33.72%

+16.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.54%

-10.10%

+0.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.19%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.31%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.78%

-0.82%

+0.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.91%

-5.32%

+3.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.19%

2.32%

-0.13%

Volatility

KLMT vs. NZAC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) have volatilities of 3.76% and 3.72%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


KLMTNZACDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.76%

3.72%

+0.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.07%

10.34%

-0.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.61%

12.94%

-0.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.85%

16.81%

-0.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.85%

17.14%

-1.29%

KLMT vs. NZAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMT has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than NZAC's 0.12% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

KLMT vs. NZAC - Dividend Comparison

KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than NZAC's 2.04% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
KLMT
Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF
1.75%1.95%0.85%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
NZAC
SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF
2.04%1.90%1.88%1.65%1.81%1.62%1.59%2.17%2.53%2.20%2.00%2.40%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.96, KLMT and NZAC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

KLMT has higher volatility (3.76%) compared to NZAC (3.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMT dropped -16.87% vs NZAC's -33.72%.

On 1-year performance, KLMT leads with 27.86% vs 24.74% for NZAC. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, KLMT has performed better with a 27.86% return vs 24.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for NZAC.

NZAC has the higher dividend yield at 2.04%, compared with 1.75% for KLMT.

KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index, while NZAC tracks MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for KLMT and 0.12% for NZAC.

KLMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.92), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for KLMT and NZAC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer